What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

What does self-realization have to do with religious belief?

No one is bothering to read anyone else's posts.

I wrote "Elliott Gould" when I meant to say "Stephen Jay Gould". Elliott Gould is an actor. S.J. Gould was an evolutionist, the principle proponent of "Punk eek".

I was sure I'd be skewered, but no one even noticed. I noticed. I assumed it was a typo based on a mental association involving the name "Gould" and decided not to comment on it, as everybody makes little slips like that. Even I, alas. (And then I went off and did something else. I don't spend *all of my time* reading other people's posts. I come back *now and then*. It is a mistake to think that just because you haven't gotten a response to something you've written within a few minutes or even a few hours, you're not going to get a response. I sometimes go a while between instances of checking threads and replying to posts.) By the way, what is "punk eek"? The "punk" makes me think of "punctuated evolution"--but the "eek" sounds different.

No one is reading anyone else's posts. I freely admit I almost never bother with PW.

This thread really should be closed. Not because nobody is reading anybody else's posts but because actual information is simply dismissed. You, for instance, agree with me entirely when I bother to post *really long* encapsulations of my views--and then, shortly thereafter, you're back at it, attacking nontheism and materialism as though nontheist materialists thought we did not love or laugh or appreciate art or have mental lives. It's as though you had just forgotten that I posted that lengthy encapsulation of my views at all.

... we only have five senses. Almost all our basic fundamental measurement is based on our PERCEPTIONS. It is as if, Reality is only what we Perceive. Did we evolve to perceive all there is to perceive, and hence, the five senses;  or only enough to sufficiently survive? So that five was all that was needed? 

Does this affect the way we do physics? I can understand that there is no point in asking about things that we don't know about (some version of Ockams razor)...but it brings me back to philosophy, and asking, Is it reality or perception?

For you, hapless:

Horus of Egypt

...

'We are not alone'. Has that ever sounded like something not just the search for life on another planet? Almost existential?

On another note...

 

Elroch, I've perused through your link and am in need of spending more time cogitating on it.

 

A few first thoughts...

 

As I recall, it said that there are two factors in evolution theory: micro and macro. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that micro is on the scale of atoms, molecules, nucleotides, amino acids, dna and so on. And I would think that the macro is more on the scale of various species, bones, paleontology, etc.

 

I suspect that I don't have this quite right. Please feel free to correct me.

 

The bigger question is that the link says that the micro is generally indisputable, even by critics. But the macro seems still open to questions. Curious...on that other thread, it seems as though the micro was heavily disputed and the macro (I'm thinking of the paleontology) seemed to never come up.

 

My third thought is about the technical terms for "fact" and "theory". I think that I have a fairly decent grasp of the distinction. But I would appreciate it if you might touch on that, too.

 

You see, I think that the average person is caught up with the word "theory" in regard to evolution and don't understand the "fact" of the matter. It as if they think evolution scientist are more like 18th century philosophers whose only real tool was omphaloskepsis and every thing they said was an armchair theory. Then they extrapolate this onto modern day scientists.

 

Yes...yes...mistaking the word "theory" in regard to evolution is a major part of the problem. Saying this, I have a hunch that even if clarified, there are those who will consider it shoddy science, akin to the "science" of philosophers of old.

 

This is a clip and paste from Wikipedia (fwiw...I know there are those who eschew Wikipedia):

 

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations.[15][16] "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.[17]

A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futuyma[18]

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[18][19] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[20]

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[21]

   Here is an interesting blog that I just found: http://www.chess.com/blog/Ian_Sinclair/how-did-life-begin

   Please try to break 900 in your blitz game.

   You had to repost all that for a cheap one-liner attack?!

     paleontology or palaeontology

     re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

     Now, when will you post your apology?